August 5, 2025 • 39 mins
If you've been sharing the same ideas for years but still feel like you're reinventing the wheel every time you explain them, this episode is for you. Susan sits down with Melanie Deziel, creator of the IRON Framework, to explore how to transform raw, unstructured ideas into scalable, repeatable frameworks. Go behind the scenes of the Calmer Framework’s evolution, explore why naming comes last, and show how frameworks can become the backbone of your services, content, and operations. Whether you’re trying to clarify your IP or reduce your mental load, this episode will help you treat your ideas like infrastructure.
What You’ll Learn:
- Why lack of structure - not lack of clarity - is holding your IP back
- The four components of Mel’s IRON Framework for turning ideas into frameworks
- How systematizing your thinking creates business leverage and margin
- The difference between creativity and reinvention
- Why framework development is more collaborative than you think
Learn More About Melanie Deziel:
Melanie Deziel is a keynote speaker, author of The Content Fuel Framework, and the founder of StoryFuel. She helps entrepreneurs and organizations transform their ideas into scalable content and IP.
- Website: https://www.melaniedeziel.com
- Framework Development Cheat Sheet
- LinkedIn: Melanie Deziel
Learn More About Susan Boles + Beyond Margins:
- Website: https://www.beyondmargins.com
- Linkedin: Susan Boles
- (00:00) - Introduction: The Problem with Unstructured Ideas
- (01:19) - Frameworks as a System
- (02:29) - The Importance of Consistent Messaging
- (20:36) - The Evolution of Frameworks
- (24:33) - Collaborative Framework Development
- (31:13) - Implementing and Scaling Frameworks
Grab the Calm Service Design + Delivery Swipe File here
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Susan Boles (00:06):
What if your ideas aren't actually the problem,
just the way they're structured?What if the mess isn't in your
message, but in the fact thatit's different every time you
say it? Today, we're solving forcalm. One KPI, one bottleneck,
one business at a time. And thistime, we're starting with your
ideas.
(00:26):
As founders, experts, orcreatives, most of us have been
talking about the same corething for years. But every time
you're on a podcast, a salescall, or writing a blog post, it
shows up a little different.There's no system, no
scaffolding, and without aconsistent structure, your ideas
can't scale. Right now, yourideas are powerful but
(00:48):
scattered. They live in yourbrain, in your talks, in your
client calls, in your content,but they're shape shifting every
time you try to share them.
You want to make your thinkingscalable, but every time you try
to document your IP, it eitherfeels oversimplified or messier
than when you started. The fix?It's not branding, it's systems
(01:11):
thinking. Frameworks for yourideas aren't just for thought
leadership, they are operationalinfrastructure. And today's
guest, Melanie Diesel has builtan actual system for turning raw
unstructured ideas into scalablefunctional frameworks.
Spoiler, she even made aframework for making frameworks,
(01:33):
which you know I love. Her ironframework is the exact process I
use to help me shape theearliest versions of the calmer
framework. And working with Melhelped me evolve it from a
clever acronym into the visualmodel and upcoming full
diagnostic tool. It's somethingthat now sits at the core of my
(01:53):
business. So we're gonna geekout about how to build
frameworks around your ideas,not just to help people
understand your thinking, but togive you the framework for your
services, your content, and evenyour operations.
And yes, we're getting a littlebit meta here because the calmer
framework is going to be allover this episode, including in
(02:14):
a little bit of behind thescenes on the development
process. Specifically though,we're talking about the business
design lever here and howstructuring your ideas and your
assets can help you createmargin, reduce reactivity, and
scale calmly. So I think for alot of folks out there, they are
not really necessarily thinkingabout structuring their ideas or
(02:38):
thinking about their ideas inany kind of a system. What do
you see the default behaviorbeing, or how do most people
experts approach their ideasstructurally?
Melanie Deziel (02:50):
What I find is that a lot of times you have,
like, your go to idea, your yourpassion, like, your talking
point, whatever you wanna callit. And you kind of approach
every interaction as anopportunity to try to explain
it. So it's like whether you'reon a podcast or you're talking
to a potential client or, Idon't know, you're on a stage or
something, you're like, okay.Now here's what I'm so
(03:12):
passionate about. And youprobably use slightly different
language to talk about it eachtime.
The idea is no less true. It'sno less important, but it's very
difficult for your audience tohave any sort of memorable
experience with that idea if youare also not having a consistent
experience of that idea. And soit's like that's that's really
(03:34):
the main issue, I think, is youcan know your idea inside and
out. But if it's not beingcommunicated in any sort of
structured way, people are notgoing to remember it. They're
not gonna pass it along.
And I think that's that's reallythe biggest thing is, like, if
you're just winging it each timeyou're trying to explain it,
then, you know, you're kindaleaving a lot on the table.
Susan Boles (03:51):
Yeah. I think there's also maybe an element of
none of us like saying the samething over and over because
Yeah. We get bored with our ownideas. But the reality is most
of the people listening to usdon't even notice that we're
repeating ourselves if we botherto.
Melanie Deziel (04:10):
It's true. Well and first of all, you're not
talking to the same people everytime. Right? If you're going on
different podcasts, talking todifferent clients, speaking at
different events, whatever thecase may be, it's not gonna be
the exact same people readingit, listening to it,
experiencing it every time.Second thing, even if they have
heard it before, they have nottaken action on all of the
things that you said, andhearing it again may actually
(04:32):
help.
I mean, I can't tell you howmany times I've had someone say
something, but like, oh my god.I I meant to do that. I should
be doing that. Why have I notdone that yet? Right?
Like, the repeat helps. But Ithink the other thing is when
you have a structure to theidea, you can actually design
very intentional different waysto talk about it, but you're
doing it with intention insteadof doing it because you're
(04:53):
winging it. When you know whatthe idea is very clearly in
their structure, you can come upwith specific different framing,
specific different positioningthat brings you into that same
idea. But, again, it's done inan intentional way rather than
this is the words I happen tosay, and it worked, and now I
can't ever repeat it because Idon't remember what came out of
my mouth.
Susan Boles (05:13):
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never
experienced that at all. So ifwe're trying to systematize our
ideas or create some sort ofstructure. You are a big
believer that frameworks are areally strong, powerful way to
do that. Talk to me about what aframework is.
So when you are describing,let's create a framework around
(05:36):
your ideas, what is that?
Melanie Deziel (05:37):
It's such a good question because I think
different people have differentideas of what that means, and
they're not all necessarilywrong. When I say a framework in
the broadest sense, I mean aconsistent consistent structure
structure that underpins yourideas, that supports those
ideas. You could think of it asa visual framework. In many
cases, it is. You could have apyramid or a flywheel or, you
(05:59):
know, I give the example of,like, remember we all grew up,
we had the food pyramid.
Like, in one instance, it's alecture about things that are
healthy and how much of youshould have of them. In another,
it's the the food pyramid, whicheven if it's now been replaced
with something called MyPlate,which looks much more like a pie
chart, it gives you a visualrepresentation of, like, these
are things I should have a lotof at the bottom, and these are
(06:19):
things I should not have as muchof at the top. It's much more
memorable and easy tounderstand. So it could be
visual like that. It could alsobe something like an acronym,
you know, where each letter of aspecific word stands for a
different element.
It could be like a rhyme, like amnemonic I before e except after
c. Rather than you having tomemorize every single word and
and how the spelling is, like,you have this mnemonic that you
(06:42):
can fall back on that kindainforms things. So there's a lot
of different ways you can putstructure behind those ideas,
but the idea the the goal reallyis to have some sort of
consistent consistent structurestructure that your idea fits
into and using that as thejumping off point for how you
present that idea to the world.
Susan Boles (07:00):
Are there any default assumptions or ideas
that you think we need tochallenge when it comes to
packaging ideas into frameworks,into systems? Are there ideas
that we just need to let go of?
Melanie Deziel (07:15):
I think naming needs to come last. This is like
the one like, I will beat thisdrum until my dying breath. I
think the biggest mistake I seepeople make, and especially if
you're newer to this or you'rereally trying to make a big
impact, is you come up with abuzzy name. Like, I'm gonna do
the people pleaser pyramid. Youknow?
Like, you come up with some ofbuzzy name, and your ideas don't
(07:37):
need to be in a pyramid. Thepyramid doesn't make sense for
those ideas because they're notbuilding. They're not appearing
in different percentages. Youkind of force a framework
because you come up with a namethat sounds good to you, and you
wind up creating a frameworkthat doesn't actually serve you,
your ideas, your business, youraudience. So I think that's the
big one.
Right? We think, okay. Well,whatever my thing is, it needs
(07:58):
to have a brandable name thatI'm gonna trademark. You know?
And it's gonna be like myofficial flywheel or like, you
know, something like that.
And it's so much less importantwhat you call the thing than
that it actually does itsintended job of making your
ideas easier to digest andeasier to remember.
Susan Boles (08:15):
I love that and am guilty of that. Unintentionally
guilty of it, but guilty of itbecause I love a good name.
Melanie Deziel (08:23):
I mean, the name is important. I'm not gonna lie
and say you know, if you call itsomething crazy, it's gonna be
harder for it to catch on. Butthis is where I like to remind
people of things like the Paretoprinciple, which is the eighty
twenty rule or Schrodinger's cator the Heimlich maneuver. Like,
even if things aren'tnecessarily super buzzy or easy
to pronounce or easy to spellright off the bat, like, those
(08:45):
names can still come torepresent an idea when it's well
executed and when appropriatelytied to the thing. So it doesn't
mean that the name doesn'tmatter.
It doesn't mean you can't haveyour name in it if that's super
important to you. It doesn'tmean it can't be a cool acronym.
It totally can. But you reallywanna start with those ideas
first and make sure you'recoming up with a cool or
memorable name that serves yourideas and not one that holds
(09:06):
them back.
Susan Boles (09:15):
So talk to me about the function. How does
organizing your ideas or your IPinto a framework help create a
system for them?
Melanie Deziel (09:30):
So it it can work a bunch of different ways,
and I think this is easier totalk about with a specific
example in mind. So just for thepurposes of this, I'll talk
about the framework I used formy first book, which was called
the Content Fuel Framework. Soat the base of it, I wanted to
explain to people, like, comingup with ideas is easy if you
have a system. That was verydifficult to do because it's
very abstract. So I came up witha tangible visible system, which
(09:53):
is a matrix.
Right? You put the topics ofyour content along one side and
the formats, like video, audio,writing down the other side. And
so it made it very easy for meto say, look. You can pick any
of these things and any of thesethings, and boom. You have a
possible way to tell that story.
So in that case, having thematrix allowed me to do a couple
things. I could structure mychapters and sections around
(10:16):
those columns and rows, whichmade the book very organized and
easy to use. It gave me tons ofideas for content to talk about
the book. Right? Each of thosedifferent subjects, those
columns and rows could be thetopic of a social post, a blog
post.
I embarked on this challenge tocreate a piece promoting the
book at each of thoseintersections as kind of a fun
(10:36):
way to talk about it. It guidedthe way that I could talk about
creating content, about how yourcontent you know, the impact
that your content has. And itallowed me to pull examples from
all different kinds ofindustries in a very structured
way. Right? Here are some fromall these different industries,
all these different businesstypes.
So it just allowed me toorganize the entire thing.
Whereas if I went into itsaying, it's really easy to come
(10:58):
up with ideas and here's a 100pages about that, that's
chaotic. It's hard for people torecommend the book after that
and say, no. It's it's reallygood. It'll help you come up
with ideas probably.
Whereas now, the recommendationpart of why I think the book has
done well is people can say, ithas a system that you can
follow, and here are thetangible outcomes of following
(11:19):
that system. Right? So it makesit very easy for people to take
away the clear takeaways andpass them along to other people.
That's it's an example just tosay that when you have a system
to fall back on, it can become alens through which you approach
the other parts of yourbusiness. I have resources that
are tied to that system, youknow, worksheets that are tied
(11:39):
to that system that people canbuy.
I have services that are tied tothat system. I have a a workshop
that I give that's tied to thatsystem. So it becomes an
underlying structure that youcan build on. Right? You can
build other services, otherproducts, experiences all around
that same underlying like, thinkof it as, like, the the framing
of a house.
Right? Like, the the house maylook different on the outside.
(12:01):
The types of people who use itand the ways they use it may be
different. But at the end of theday, it's a bunch of two by
fours screwed together, like,underneath. You need that for it
to hold up, right, and for it toto have any staying power.
And so it's very similar. Yeah.
Susan Boles (12:14):
Think I my framework is a lot newer than
yours and still sort of indevelopment. But what I realized
was once I had, like, the oneidea, everything can tie back to
that. Yep. It started as anacronym, which now makes me
wanna, like, hide hide my face.
Melanie Deziel (12:33):
But it's okay. It's okay.
Susan Boles (12:35):
It started as an acronym because that's where I
thought it was gonna go. Itevolved into more of a visual
framework that's something alittle bit more actionable. It's
now evolving into an assessmentand different personality types.
And I could write a book now onevery single lever because I
think, for me, one of thebenefits that we actually
(12:58):
haven't talked about is I amsomebody who has a really hard
time wanting to say the samething over and over because I
love new ideas. Like, one of thereasons I love businesses is is
because there's always a newidea.
There's always something new tolearn. And the framework for me
(13:19):
was a way to get myself into theidea, get comfortable with
saying the same thing over andover. Because for me, there's
always a new way to now explorethat idea. I'm not just saying
out there, I mean, am, that sheshould go make Call Me Your New
KPI. I say that everywhere.
(13:40):
But for me, then I get toexplore that through the lens of
management style, that throughthe lens of business design. And
then within those, there's,like, multiple sub dimensions
and different spectrum. And itis a really good way for me to
control myself and my desire totalk about new things.
Melanie Deziel (13:58):
Yeah.
Susan Boles (13:59):
Because I can talk about new things to me that
feels like the same thing toanybody who's hearing it.
Melanie Deziel (14:07):
Totally. Well and I think that there is this
broader misconception, and thisis true of, like, all creative
environments, jobs, efforts,projects, is that people think
creativity is stifled bylimitations, and it's actually
amplified by limitations. Whenyou have no limitations, it is
incredibly difficult to makeforward progress because you
(14:29):
have the entire world at yourdisposal. How do you possibly
decide what to cook with noingredient list? Right?
How do you possibly decide whatto craft when you are in the
middle of a craft store? There'stoo many options. Right? And
we've all had that experienceof, like, I don't know where to
start. There's too much.
When you have guidelines, itactually forces you to think in
(14:49):
a more productive way so thateven if you ultimately go
outside of those guidelines,you're doing it with intention,
and you're doing it in astructured way, and it winds up
creating more ideas. It's why ifyou think about any challenge
based show that you've everseen, it's built around rules.
Like, I love Chopped. Have youever
Susan Boles (15:07):
seen Chopped? Oh, I love Chopped. It's my favorite.
Melanie Deziel (15:09):
So here we have these amazing chefs, for anyone
who hasn't seen it, amazingchefs who, you know, they run
restaurants. They're, like,private chefs for celebrities.
Like, they've won awards,whatever. They run multi star
Michelin restaurants, and theycome in and someone says, here
you go. You need to make anappetizer using gummy bears,
chili peppers, and I don't evenknow, like marshmallows.
Susan Boles (15:29):
I don't know.
Melanie Deziel (15:30):
And they give them these challenges, and
that's an incredible challenge.But if they came in and said,
make an appetizer, and they havethis whole pantry, like, where
do you even begin? The fact thatthey give them a difficult
challenge forces innovation. Itforces them to think
differently, and they end upcoming up with things. Even
though they're incrediblytalented, they come up with
things they never would haveotherwise.
Right? So having structure,having those limitations doesn't
(15:54):
actually make you lesseffective. It doesn't make you
less able to communicate yourideas. It forces you to think
about it in a new way.
Susan Boles (16:02):
I love the chopped analogy. So the next logical
(17:01):
question is, cool. How do I godo that thing now? Because that
sounds super cool, also reallyhard. Yes.
So how do you go about creatinga framework around an idea?
Like, what's the actual process?
Melanie Deziel (17:18):
So what's really fun for me is I'm autistic. My
brain is very visual andorganized and systematic just by
nature. And so most of thesystems that I teach are systems
that I was doing automaticallyand then reverse engineered to
figure out, okay. Like, how am Idoing this in my head? Because I
can't teach other people if Idon't know what I'm doing.
So that's how content fieldframework came to be, and it's
(17:39):
how I came into this process ofmaking frameworks. I'm like, how
do I look at ideas and makesense of them? And I realized
that I had four distinct thingsthat I was looking at. The first
one is the ideas themselves. Sowhat are the key pieces of
information that we are tryingto communicate?
We need to have those fairlyclear. Even if they might go by
different names, like, what arethe key elements? Let's make
(18:02):
piles. Like, here are thesetypes of things, these types of
things, and these types ofthings. Let's get those key
ideas down.
So that's the first step. That'sthe information. The second step
is we look at the relationshipbetween those pieces of
information. Are they all equal?Are some of them more important
than others?
Do they, you know, need tohappen in a specific order? Do
they lead from one to the other,or are they just a list of
(18:24):
things? So we're looking at howdo those pieces of information
relate to one another. The thirdone is operation. What do we
want people to do with thisthing?
Do they need to memorize it? Dothey need to use it as guidance
for a process? Do they need tomeasure themselves against it in
the case of, like, yourassessment? How are they going
to operate this model? And thenthe last step, as we talked
about, is naming.
(18:44):
This is what I call my ironframework, I r o n, information,
relation, operation, and thennaming. And that's really how we
take your ideas and kind of getrid of all those wrinkles and
get them into a straight,smooth, and organized pile of
information.
Susan Boles (18:58):
I think that sounds nice. I found the concept of the
iron framework to be veryhelpful.
Melanie Deziel (19:06):
So how do we break it down?
Susan Boles (19:07):
Yeah. I think the part that I struggled with was
realizing how iterative theprocess ends up being. Because
for me, it started as anacronym, And I'm gonna like,
originally, it was CALM. Andthen it became CALMER. Then
(19:29):
Uh-huh.
As I started using it, Irealized this doesn't quite hold
up in the real world. Yep. Okay.But now I'm stuck with CALMER as
an acronym that, like, thebuckets have changed because I
started using this in the realworld. And that prompted me to
have to go, okay, well, maybeit's not an acronym anymore.
(19:51):
Yeah. Maybe it's a visual thingthat I can still keep the name
Calmer Framework, but it'ssomething else. And that evolved
into, I think, it was like a asunburst kind of, like, And then
evolved into the lever systemThat, that we have like, even I
(20:13):
think it's I'm now, like,eighteen months down the road of
this process. As I was evolving,then I was taking the levers and
trying to turn them into anassessment. I ended up
realizing, oh, one of the namesof my levers still isn't quite
right because it requires toomuch explanation.
And the process of going throughthe assessment meant I went back
(20:34):
and changed Yeah. The name ofthe lever. So talk about how the
process normally evolves forfolks.
Melanie Deziel (20:42):
Yeah. It's a really good point too because
it's very rare that you sit downand you're like, let me make a
framework, and then it's justlike perfect for all eternity.
So for some context, again, justto use the same example, the
content field framework matrixthat I used, I didn't make it up
for the book. I had been usingit in workshops just like you're
talking about, like, actuallyusing it out in the world for
(21:03):
about a year and a half to twoyears before I memorialized it
into the book, and so muchchanged from initial to when it
was printed. And I wouldprobably adjust it now because
there's been innovation sincethen in the tools we use for
content.
Like, it doesn't address AI atall. That's probably gonna have
to happen in a version two. Soit it is important to know that
it's going to evolve. Right?There's nothing wrong with that.
(21:25):
Think about the periodic tableof elements. They discover a new
element, and they add it onthere in the right spot. Right?
Or the the tree that shows allthe different classes and
kingdoms and phylums of species,they discover something new,
they tack it on. That happens.
That's going to happen. What'simportant is that you recognize
when that's happening and makethose changes. So the fact that
(21:45):
you saw that it needed to bereorganized is part of that.
Right? Putting it to use andseeing where it's lacking and
being able to adjust it.
I even mentioned the foodpyramid that we all grew up
using. You know, if you're ofrelatively middle age or quarter
life crisis zone, you probablygrew up with the food pyramid.
They don't even use the pyramidanymore. Now they have this,
like, pie chart plate. Theychanged it because it didn't
(22:06):
serve anymore.
If you see the framework as away to present your ideas and
not as a name that we're marriedto and it has to be in this
form, it becomes easier toupdate it because you're making
it serve the ideas better. So,yes, it will definitely evolve
over time as it needs to. Theidea is if we go through the
iron framework, if we start byreally getting clear on what
(22:27):
those key ideas are, then we'reless likely to need to do major
restructure. So I'm using you asan example. You know, I love the
calmer framework, so this is allfrom a place of love.
When you went from calm tocalmer, what I see that as is
that is a problem of that firststage of the key information. We
thought there were four buckets.Right? You thought there were
four pieces of information. Youcame to discover there's
(22:50):
actually six.
We gotta adjust it. That's whereif we start with those key
information, we reallyinterrogate it. We ask really
critical questions about what isnecessary, what needs to be in
here, and what can be part ofsomething else. We can get
clearer on, for example, howmany buckets, how many steps,
how many of those keyinformation pieces need to be
included. So, hopefully, thathelps keep you from a major
(23:11):
restructure.
And then it's the relation andoperation, I think, is where it
brings you back. Right? Becauseif you start using it like you
did in the world, this is howpeople are operating, how I'm
using this in the world, I'vediscovered a gap. I need to go
back and make sure that the keyinformation pieces are the same.
But the naming part that youmentioned, that's at the end
because changing the label onthe lever, that's an easy switch
(23:33):
to make.
Right? You can do that. I'vechanged the names of categories.
Initially, there was a categoryof people focused content. It
used to be called features.
I come from journalism. Featuresto me means, obviously, it's
about a person. That doesn'tseem obvious to people who
didn't come from journalism, andI didn't know that until I
started using it around peoplewho didn't come from journals.
Right? So naming stuff, I think,is an easy swap to make.
(23:56):
Those bigger structural things,it's why we start with the key
information first. Because ifyou could get as clear as
possible on the most importantinformation, the rest of the
stuff tends to come easier, orit becomes clear, like you
mentioned, when you need to takea step back and reevaluate at
the high level.
Susan Boles (24:12):
Yeah. I think for me, when I created the buckets
of ideas, I was very confidentin those ideas. And I do think
they still exist. Like Yeah.They were reorganized, for sure.
But all of the pieces ofinformation that I started with
are still in the model now. Yep.Where I ended up getting stuck
(24:37):
was the translation. And I thinkthis is one of those areas where
this is something that isfundamentally really, really
challenging to do by yourself inisolation Yeah. In your room.
Like, I was very confident inthe original version. Like, I
tested it. I interrogated it. Iput people that I know into
(24:58):
different areas. It came out ofmy work with, you know, real
world businesses.
But there is an element where,like, you need a different
perspective to come in and helpyou understand the connections.
Melanie Deziel (25:12):
It's your idea. It comes from your brain. It
makes sense to you. It's kind oflike how editing requires
outside eyes because you knowwhat you meant to say, so you
might read the correct word orthe correct spelling even if
it's not on the page. It's verysimilar with your framework.
You know what the differentbuckets are, so you might just
skip the steps that an outsiderwould need to have more
explicitly explained. So, yeah,I think it's really helpful to
(25:34):
have other eyes, but it's alsohelpful not to commit too early.
Like, when you're playing aroundwith those ideas, again, that's
why naming is last. Right? Ifwe're not sure if this is the
final iteration, like, let's getout there.
Let me do a workshop with it.Before I give it a fancy name,
let me just call it how tocreate a calmer business or, you
know, something, how to come upwith more content ideas. Go
(25:54):
teach my version of it as it isnow and see how it lands or
write a blog post, see howpeople respond, see what
questions they have, talk aboutit on social, see what the
replies and comments say. Sojust start to put it out there.
Like, that's part of theprocess.
Right? You're just it's likebeta testing of a software or,
like, having a focus group.Right? You're just kinda putting
it out there for other eyes tosee, or find a partner who can
(26:18):
bring an outside perspective tothat early process when you're
in the development, which it wasI mean, I have really enjoyed
getting to work with you on thecalmer framework and watching it
evolve to to where it is nowover the course of the last, I
guess, yeah, it's been, like,almost two years.
Susan Boles (26:31):
Yeah. Part that I I love about it I mean, I love a
system. I always love a system.It had never occurred to me to
have a system around my ideas,and I spent eight years talking
about essentially the samestuff. Right?
Like, calmer framework doesn'tcontain anything in it that I
(26:52):
wasn't talking about in thefirst year of my business. But
it ended up being a surprisinglycollaborative process in a way
that I didn't expect becauseit's all my own ideas. But every
time I talked to somebody aboutit, they would bring in a
(27:13):
different perspective,especially if it's somebody that
had known my work for a longtime. Right? Yeah.
So, like, when I startedthinking about, essentially,
what's my premise? What do Italk about? How do I, like,
create this circle around allthe things that I talk about?
And that ended up being, cool.I'm gonna talk about it in the
context of calm.
I was trying to describe it to afriend who has known me for the
(27:38):
whole ten years of thisbusiness. I met them, I think,
in the first year of mybusiness. And when I was talking
about, hey, here's this newidea. And they were like, oh,
you know, that totally playsinto the idea of default
decisions. That is this ideafrom the first year of my
business that stuck with themthat then ended up being one of
(28:00):
the ends of the spectrum.
Melanie Deziel (28:02):
That
Susan Boles (28:02):
Yeah. It didn't even occur to me that the ideas
were all connected. They wereall the same until I had
somebody who's heard me talkabout stuff in eleventy billion
ways over the course of adecade, realizing from the
outside, like, hey, it's all thesame. Like, you're trying to
make this multiple differentthings. It's not different
things.
It's all one thing. And so beingable to talk to different people
(28:26):
who come at ideas from differentways. Right? So like, they came
in with the idea of they'velistened to me talk about stuff
for a decade. You came in withthe idea of like, hey, this
should be a system.
Right? Like, Jay Kinzo issomebody else who was like very
integral in the process of whatis the premise? Like, what's the
(28:48):
circle around this stuff? And soI think this is one area where
even though on the surface, Ithink most people are coming to
it like, this needs to be me myideas. This is my IP.
This is my framework. For me,the process has been so
collaborative. Like, there's somany people that have had an
(29:09):
impact on what the idea ends upeventually becoming. Think
that's a really underestimatedpart of this I think it's true.
Evolution of the process.
Melanie Deziel (29:20):
Yeah. And it's it's really true too because, I
mean, I've worked with a bunchof, you know, entrepreneurs. I
worked with organizations whoare trying to do something
similar, and that is often aconcern where they're like,
well, we don't want you to comeup it. And I'm like, no. I don't
wanna come up with it either.
Like, I don't know your coreideas as well as you do. To me,
I feel like I'm trying to helpyou organize them in a way that
makes your ideas more clear,that makes it easier for you to
(29:42):
communicate them, that makesthem fit together. You have all
these disparate pieces. Like,how do we see the bigger vision
and find out how they worktogether? It's just It's your
ideas organized organized.
In a way that makes them easierfor you. You can make a really
simple analogy too. It's like,think of a closet. If you have
(30:04):
no system in your closet andthere's just, like, pants and
underwear and sweaters and,like, bathing suits and
everything's just all mixed upand there's no dedicated drawer
or or shelf or area for anything, it's hard for you to find
what you need. It's hard for youto find the thing that somebody
else needs to borrow that youknow is perfect for them.
(30:24):
It is hard to make sense of thatspace. If you take everything
out, you figure out what yourcategories are, and you put them
in the place that best serveshow they're going to be used,
it's very, very similar. You'redoing the same thing like
organizing a closet just likewith your ideas. We're putting
like with like. We'reunderstanding what needs to
happen in what order.
Like, it doesn't make sense toput your underwear all the way
(30:46):
in the back if everything elseis over here because then you're
gonna have to, like, go reallyfar to start with your base
layer. Like, that shouldprobably be first. You know? So
it's the same content that youalready have in your brain.
We're just working together toorganize it in a way that will
make it easier for you.
It'll make it make more sensefor you. You make better use of
all your amazing ideas cause youcan get to them. I don't know. I
(31:08):
think I'm just a a glorifiedcloset organizer. Just brains
instead of closets.
Susan Boles (31:13):
I love that. Is there anything you think we
should talk about that wehaven't actually, like, touched
on when it comes to frameworksor this process?
Melanie Deziel (31:21):
Yeah. Another common concern I can't remember
if if you went through this atall. I think you were you kinda
had this already tackled. Butone thing that people worry
about is, like, how much do youput in it? Like, does my
framework need to cover everypossible service that I offer
and every possible thing I'veever talked about?
No. It doesn't. It it needs tobe somewhere in the middle of
enough that people understandwhat you do and understand your
(31:44):
main premise, your main idea,and not so much that they don't
have follow-up questions. Andthat's kind of a sweet spot that
can be hard to see from theinside, but there's a difference
between, again, the food pyramidand a graduate level course on
nutrition. They're not intendedto be substituted for one
another.
Right? It plays a very specificrole, that pyramid, to give you
(32:04):
the basic overview. And if youhave further questions, you can
dig in deeper. That's reallywhat we wanna do with our
framework too. You know, it'snot everything that you've ever
known, everything that youthink, everything that you have
to teach someone.
It shouldn't live on its ownwithout you to be implemented.
It should help people understandyour main idea so that they ask
those follow-up questions whereyou can help them do more.
Susan Boles (32:25):
I love that. Sometimes I feel like mine is
too big, and I think that'spartially because I talk about
all different aspects of it. Butsometimes it does feel kind of
big and unwieldy. And one of thethings I like about it is, on
the surface, it's four levers.That's pretty straightforward.
When you start getting into thedetails, man, I really could
(32:46):
write a book on each of thelevers. Totally. Like, could
totally be a it's standalonething. Now, when I see the
world, I'm so appreciative ofreally well designed designed
frameworks that can, like,really encapsulate an idea so
succinctly. Like Yeah.
Before having a framework, whenpeople were like, what do you
(33:10):
do? And I would give them thislong winded Yeah. Thing about
like, oh, I'm a fractional COOand CFO and I help people do
finance and operations. And thepeople would be like, what do
you mean? And then I had toexpand on that.
Now I could say, you know, Ihelp people engineer calmer
businesses. That's enough.Right? Like, that's enough to
get people to go, Tell me moreabout that. But I don't think I
(33:32):
would have been able to getthere without having a framework
that, like, organized thecomplexity for me.
Melanie Deziel (33:40):
Yeah. Well and it's the difference between is I
need you to tell me more becauseI don't understand and tell me
more than sounds interesting.Like, that's right? It's like
they still want more informationbut not because what you started
with is insufficient butbecause, wow, I I wanna learn
more about how to do that. Takeme further down that road.
Susan Boles (33:59):
Yeah. I it has been I think probably the single most
powerful thing that I haveinvested business in a decade
was just committing to having aframework and exploring it. I
don't think I could communicate,like, how much of an asset that
(34:21):
has become for the business.
Melanie Deziel (34:23):
Like Awesome.
Susan Boles (34:24):
Very surprisingly. Like, I think in systems all the
time. It never occurred to me toput a system on top of my ideas.
Melanie Deziel (34:32):
I mean, listen. I made a system for making
systems. So I feel
Susan Boles (34:35):
you sometimes. That is my favorite thing. When I'm
talking to people about you, I'mlike, the best thing is that she
made a system for makingsystems, and it's my favorite
thing ever.
Melanie Deziel (34:46):
I mean, listen. At least I'm walking the walk.
Right? I I practice what Ipreach. So
Susan Boles (34:52):
if people are listening and they want to try
to start this process forthemselves and they've been in
business a while, they've gotideas, they have a bajillion t
blog posts and email emailnewsletters newsletters and and
podcast interview. What is onetiny thing that they could do to
start?
Melanie Deziel (35:08):
A couple different options. If you are
really committed to, like, a DIYor you feel like you're in the
really early phases, go back tothat iron framework that I
walked through. So start byreally getting deep on your big
ideas. You can do this in abunch of different ways. If
you're a whiteboard person,throw it all in the whiteboard.
I personally like post itsbecause it allows you to
reorganize, and that's what thenext step involves. Right? That
(35:30):
relationship between all thoseideas. So I like putting
everything on post its, whetherit's on a wall, on paper, and
just get all your ideas out soyou can figure out what the key
information is. What's theoverlap?
You can try to figure out whatare your ingredients that you're
working with so you can then goon to build. That's where I
would start because I thinkthat's where a lot of light bulb
moments happen. Things start tobecome more clear when you
(35:52):
really get everything out all atonce and you're looking at all
of those elements. So that'swhere I would start. If you want
a a middle of the road option, Ido have a framework development
cheat sheet on my websitethat's, $5 or something.
Just a downloadable guide thatwalks you through each of those
steps. And I also work withpeople, with my framework
accelerator, which I've donewith you, where we do sort of a
(36:12):
two hour in-depth session, andwe do that together. We
interrogate those ideas. Weorganize them appropriately, and
then we get you to the pointwhere we don't always get to
name at the end. That's more ofa personal choice.
But we can figure out those keyideas, figure out their
relationships, and organize themin a way that allows you to go
forward and then make those partof
Susan Boles (36:30):
your business. This wasn't just a conversation about
frameworks as a concept. It'sabout using them as a lever. And
the lever that Mel and I bothpulled? Business design.
Specifically, the decision totreat our ideas as
infrastructure. We both realizedthat our IP, the core thinking
(36:53):
that runs through everything wedo, was too important to leave
undocumented or ad hoc. Weneeded a system that could hold
the complexity without requiringus to show up live every time to
explain it. Melanie's ironframework walks you through
clarifying the information, soyour core ideas, defining the
relationships between them,understanding the operation or
(37:15):
how people will use it, andlast, developing the naming and
the language that fits aroundit. When your framework can
contain your core ideas, you cantalk about the same thing
everywhere without feeling likeyou're repeating yourself.
Your clients can move fasterbecause you're working from a
shared mental model and you gaina lens to evaluate new offers,
(37:36):
content, and strategy choices.Frameworks don't just help you
explain your ideas. They canactually help you run your
business. So, yes, we're pullingthe business design lever of the
Calmer framework here,specifically the decision to
systematize your intellectualproperty. Because when your
ideas live in a consistentflexible structure, they don't
just sound clearer, theyactually scale.
(37:58):
That's what a good frameworkdoes. It gives you a repeatable
way to package your thinking,build services and products,
communicate with your team, andreduce the mental load of
reinvention. So as Melsuggested, here's your tiny
action to make some progress.Block off 20, pull together
every blog post, talk, outline,or scribbled note you've made
(38:21):
about your core idea. Then askyourself, what is showing up
over and over again?
What belongs together? What areyou actually trying to teach or
change? Don't try to name ityet. Don't diagram it. Just
surface the raw ingredientsbecause clarity isn't just a
messaging problem.
It's an operational opportunityand designing your ideas like
(38:43):
infrastructure. Well, that's howyou scale calmly. Now in the
next episode, Mel and I aregoing to take you behind the
scenes of her frameworkaccelerator service, the one
that we talked about here in alive coaching episode where
we're going to redesign andautomate her client onboarding
experience using the veryframework we've been talking
(39:03):
about. So hit subscribe in yourfavorite podcast player, and
I'll see you there.
What if your ideas aren't actually the problem,
just the way they're structured?What if the mess isn't in your
message, but in the fact thatit's different every time you
say it? Today, we're solving forcalm. One KPI, one bottleneck,
one business at a time. And thistime, we're starting with your
ideas.
(00:26):
As founders, experts, orcreatives, most of us have been
talking about the same corething for years. But every time
you're on a podcast, a salescall, or writing a blog post, it
shows up a little different.There's no system, no
scaffolding, and without aconsistent structure, your ideas
can't scale. Right now, yourideas are powerful but
(00:48):
scattered. They live in yourbrain, in your talks, in your
client calls, in your content,but they're shape shifting every
time you try to share them.
You want to make your thinkingscalable, but every time you try
to document your IP, it eitherfeels oversimplified or messier
than when you started. The fix?It's not branding, it's systems
(01:11):
thinking. Frameworks for yourideas aren't just for thought
leadership, they are operationalinfrastructure. And today's
guest, Melanie Diesel has builtan actual system for turning raw
unstructured ideas into scalablefunctional frameworks.
Spoiler, she even made aframework for making frameworks,
(01:33):
which you know I love. Her ironframework is the exact process I
use to help me shape theearliest versions of the calmer
framework. And working with Melhelped me evolve it from a
clever acronym into the visualmodel and upcoming full
diagnostic tool. It's somethingthat now sits at the core of my
(01:53):
business. So we're gonna geekout about how to build
frameworks around your ideas,not just to help people
understand your thinking, but togive you the framework for your
services, your content, and evenyour operations.
And yes, we're getting a littlebit meta here because the calmer
framework is going to be allover this episode, including in
(02:14):
a little bit of behind thescenes on the development
process. Specifically though,we're talking about the business
design lever here and howstructuring your ideas and your
assets can help you createmargin, reduce reactivity, and
scale calmly. So I think for alot of folks out there, they are
not really necessarily thinkingabout structuring their ideas or
(02:38):
thinking about their ideas inany kind of a system. What do
you see the default behaviorbeing, or how do most people
experts approach their ideasstructurally?
Melanie Deziel (02:50):
What I find is that a lot of times you have,
like, your go to idea, your yourpassion, like, your talking
point, whatever you wanna callit. And you kind of approach
every interaction as anopportunity to try to explain
it. So it's like whether you'reon a podcast or you're talking
to a potential client or, Idon't know, you're on a stage or
something, you're like, okay.Now here's what I'm so
(03:12):
passionate about. And youprobably use slightly different
language to talk about it eachtime.
The idea is no less true. It'sno less important, but it's very
difficult for your audience tohave any sort of memorable
experience with that idea if youare also not having a consistent
experience of that idea. And soit's like that's that's really
(03:34):
the main issue, I think, is youcan know your idea inside and
out. But if it's not beingcommunicated in any sort of
structured way, people are notgoing to remember it. They're
not gonna pass it along.
And I think that's that's reallythe biggest thing is, like, if
you're just winging it each timeyou're trying to explain it,
then, you know, you're kindaleaving a lot on the table.
Susan Boles (03:51):
Yeah. I think there's also maybe an element of
none of us like saying the samething over and over because
Yeah. We get bored with our ownideas. But the reality is most
of the people listening to usdon't even notice that we're
repeating ourselves if we botherto.
Melanie Deziel (04:10):
It's true. Well and first of all, you're not
talking to the same people everytime. Right? If you're going on
different podcasts, talking todifferent clients, speaking at
different events, whatever thecase may be, it's not gonna be
the exact same people readingit, listening to it,
experiencing it every time.Second thing, even if they have
heard it before, they have nottaken action on all of the
things that you said, andhearing it again may actually
(04:32):
help.
I mean, I can't tell you howmany times I've had someone say
something, but like, oh my god.I I meant to do that. I should
be doing that. Why have I notdone that yet? Right?
Like, the repeat helps. But Ithink the other thing is when
you have a structure to theidea, you can actually design
very intentional different waysto talk about it, but you're
doing it with intention insteadof doing it because you're
(04:53):
winging it. When you know whatthe idea is very clearly in
their structure, you can come upwith specific different framing,
specific different positioningthat brings you into that same
idea. But, again, it's done inan intentional way rather than
this is the words I happen tosay, and it worked, and now I
can't ever repeat it because Idon't remember what came out of
my mouth.
Susan Boles (05:13):
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never
experienced that at all. So ifwe're trying to systematize our
ideas or create some sort ofstructure. You are a big
believer that frameworks are areally strong, powerful way to
do that. Talk to me about what aframework is.
So when you are describing,let's create a framework around
(05:36):
your ideas, what is that?
Melanie Deziel (05:37):
It's such a good question because I think
different people have differentideas of what that means, and
they're not all necessarilywrong. When I say a framework in
the broadest sense, I mean aconsistent consistent structure
structure that underpins yourideas, that supports those
ideas. You could think of it asa visual framework. In many
cases, it is. You could have apyramid or a flywheel or, you
(05:59):
know, I give the example of,like, remember we all grew up,
we had the food pyramid.
Like, in one instance, it's alecture about things that are
healthy and how much of youshould have of them. In another,
it's the the food pyramid, whicheven if it's now been replaced
with something called MyPlate,which looks much more like a pie
chart, it gives you a visualrepresentation of, like, these
are things I should have a lotof at the bottom, and these are
(06:19):
things I should not have as muchof at the top. It's much more
memorable and easy tounderstand. So it could be
visual like that. It could alsobe something like an acronym,
you know, where each letter of aspecific word stands for a
different element.
It could be like a rhyme, like amnemonic I before e except after
c. Rather than you having tomemorize every single word and
and how the spelling is, like,you have this mnemonic that you
(06:42):
can fall back on that kindainforms things. So there's a lot
of different ways you can putstructure behind those ideas,
but the idea the the goal reallyis to have some sort of
consistent consistent structurestructure that your idea fits
into and using that as thejumping off point for how you
present that idea to the world.
Susan Boles (07:00):
Are there any default assumptions or ideas
that you think we need tochallenge when it comes to
packaging ideas into frameworks,into systems? Are there ideas
that we just need to let go of?
Melanie Deziel (07:15):
I think naming needs to come last. This is like
the one like, I will beat thisdrum until my dying breath. I
think the biggest mistake I seepeople make, and especially if
you're newer to this or you'rereally trying to make a big
impact, is you come up with abuzzy name. Like, I'm gonna do
the people pleaser pyramid. Youknow?
Like, you come up with some ofbuzzy name, and your ideas don't
(07:37):
need to be in a pyramid. Thepyramid doesn't make sense for
those ideas because they're notbuilding. They're not appearing
in different percentages. Youkind of force a framework
because you come up with a namethat sounds good to you, and you
wind up creating a frameworkthat doesn't actually serve you,
your ideas, your business, youraudience. So I think that's the
big one.
Right? We think, okay. Well,whatever my thing is, it needs
(07:58):
to have a brandable name thatI'm gonna trademark. You know?
And it's gonna be like myofficial flywheel or like, you
know, something like that.
And it's so much less importantwhat you call the thing than
that it actually does itsintended job of making your
ideas easier to digest andeasier to remember.
Susan Boles (08:15):
I love that and am guilty of that. Unintentionally
guilty of it, but guilty of itbecause I love a good name.
Melanie Deziel (08:23):
I mean, the name is important. I'm not gonna lie
and say you know, if you call itsomething crazy, it's gonna be
harder for it to catch on. Butthis is where I like to remind
people of things like the Paretoprinciple, which is the eighty
twenty rule or Schrodinger's cator the Heimlich maneuver. Like,
even if things aren'tnecessarily super buzzy or easy
to pronounce or easy to spellright off the bat, like, those
(08:45):
names can still come torepresent an idea when it's well
executed and when appropriatelytied to the thing. So it doesn't
mean that the name doesn'tmatter.
It doesn't mean you can't haveyour name in it if that's super
important to you. It doesn'tmean it can't be a cool acronym.
It totally can. But you reallywanna start with those ideas
first and make sure you'recoming up with a cool or
memorable name that serves yourideas and not one that holds
(09:06):
them back.
Susan Boles (09:15):
So talk to me about the function. How does
organizing your ideas or your IPinto a framework help create a
system for them?
Melanie Deziel (09:30):
So it it can work a bunch of different ways,
and I think this is easier totalk about with a specific
example in mind. So just for thepurposes of this, I'll talk
about the framework I used formy first book, which was called
the Content Fuel Framework. Soat the base of it, I wanted to
explain to people, like, comingup with ideas is easy if you
have a system. That was verydifficult to do because it's
very abstract. So I came up witha tangible visible system, which
(09:53):
is a matrix.
Right? You put the topics ofyour content along one side and
the formats, like video, audio,writing down the other side. And
so it made it very easy for meto say, look. You can pick any
of these things and any of thesethings, and boom. You have a
possible way to tell that story.
So in that case, having thematrix allowed me to do a couple
things. I could structure mychapters and sections around
(10:16):
those columns and rows, whichmade the book very organized and
easy to use. It gave me tons ofideas for content to talk about
the book. Right? Each of thosedifferent subjects, those
columns and rows could be thetopic of a social post, a blog
post.
I embarked on this challenge tocreate a piece promoting the
book at each of thoseintersections as kind of a fun
(10:36):
way to talk about it. It guidedthe way that I could talk about
creating content, about how yourcontent you know, the impact
that your content has. And itallowed me to pull examples from
all different kinds ofindustries in a very structured
way. Right? Here are some fromall these different industries,
all these different businesstypes.
So it just allowed me toorganize the entire thing.
Whereas if I went into itsaying, it's really easy to come
(10:58):
up with ideas and here's a 100pages about that, that's
chaotic. It's hard for people torecommend the book after that
and say, no. It's it's reallygood. It'll help you come up
with ideas probably.
Whereas now, the recommendationpart of why I think the book has
done well is people can say, ithas a system that you can
follow, and here are thetangible outcomes of following
(11:19):
that system. Right? So it makesit very easy for people to take
away the clear takeaways andpass them along to other people.
That's it's an example just tosay that when you have a system
to fall back on, it can become alens through which you approach
the other parts of yourbusiness. I have resources that
are tied to that system, youknow, worksheets that are tied
(11:39):
to that system that people canbuy.
I have services that are tied tothat system. I have a a workshop
that I give that's tied to thatsystem. So it becomes an
underlying structure that youcan build on. Right? You can
build other services, otherproducts, experiences all around
that same underlying like, thinkof it as, like, the the framing
of a house.
Right? Like, the the house maylook different on the outside.
(12:01):
The types of people who use itand the ways they use it may be
different. But at the end of theday, it's a bunch of two by
fours screwed together, like,underneath. You need that for it
to hold up, right, and for it toto have any staying power.
And so it's very similar. Yeah.
Susan Boles (12:14):
Think I my framework is a lot newer than
yours and still sort of indevelopment. But what I realized
was once I had, like, the oneidea, everything can tie back to
that. Yep. It started as anacronym, which now makes me
wanna, like, hide hide my face.
Melanie Deziel (12:33):
But it's okay. It's okay.
Susan Boles (12:35):
It started as an acronym because that's where I
thought it was gonna go. Itevolved into more of a visual
framework that's something alittle bit more actionable. It's
now evolving into an assessmentand different personality types.
And I could write a book now onevery single lever because I
think, for me, one of thebenefits that we actually
(12:58):
haven't talked about is I amsomebody who has a really hard
time wanting to say the samething over and over because I
love new ideas. Like, one of thereasons I love businesses is is
because there's always a newidea.
There's always something new tolearn. And the framework for me
(13:19):
was a way to get myself into theidea, get comfortable with
saying the same thing over andover. Because for me, there's
always a new way to now explorethat idea. I'm not just saying
out there, I mean, am, that sheshould go make Call Me Your New
KPI. I say that everywhere.
(13:40):
But for me, then I get toexplore that through the lens of
management style, that throughthe lens of business design. And
then within those, there's,like, multiple sub dimensions
and different spectrum. And itis a really good way for me to
control myself and my desire totalk about new things.
Melanie Deziel (13:58):
Yeah.
Susan Boles (13:59):
Because I can talk about new things to me that
feels like the same thing toanybody who's hearing it.
Melanie Deziel (14:07):
Totally. Well and I think that there is this
broader misconception, and thisis true of, like, all creative
environments, jobs, efforts,projects, is that people think
creativity is stifled bylimitations, and it's actually
amplified by limitations. Whenyou have no limitations, it is
incredibly difficult to makeforward progress because you
(14:29):
have the entire world at yourdisposal. How do you possibly
decide what to cook with noingredient list? Right?
How do you possibly decide whatto craft when you are in the
middle of a craft store? There'stoo many options. Right? And
we've all had that experienceof, like, I don't know where to
start. There's too much.
When you have guidelines, itactually forces you to think in
(14:49):
a more productive way so thateven if you ultimately go
outside of those guidelines,you're doing it with intention,
and you're doing it in astructured way, and it winds up
creating more ideas. It's why ifyou think about any challenge
based show that you've everseen, it's built around rules.
Like, I love Chopped. Have youever
Susan Boles (15:07):
seen Chopped? Oh, I love Chopped. It's my favorite.
Melanie Deziel (15:09):
So here we have these amazing chefs, for anyone
who hasn't seen it, amazingchefs who, you know, they run
restaurants. They're, like,private chefs for celebrities.
Like, they've won awards,whatever. They run multi star
Michelin restaurants, and theycome in and someone says, here
you go. You need to make anappetizer using gummy bears,
chili peppers, and I don't evenknow, like marshmallows.
Susan Boles (15:29):
I don't know.
Melanie Deziel (15:30):
And they give them these challenges, and
that's an incredible challenge.But if they came in and said,
make an appetizer, and they havethis whole pantry, like, where
do you even begin? The fact thatthey give them a difficult
challenge forces innovation. Itforces them to think
differently, and they end upcoming up with things. Even
though they're incrediblytalented, they come up with
things they never would haveotherwise.
Right? So having structure,having those limitations doesn't
(15:54):
actually make you lesseffective. It doesn't make you
less able to communicate yourideas. It forces you to think
about it in a new way.
Susan Boles (16:02):
I love the chopped analogy. So the next logical
(17:01):
question is, cool. How do I godo that thing now? Because that
sounds super cool, also reallyhard. Yes.
So how do you go about creatinga framework around an idea?
Like, what's the actual process?
Melanie Deziel (17:18):
So what's really fun for me is I'm autistic. My
brain is very visual andorganized and systematic just by
nature. And so most of thesystems that I teach are systems
that I was doing automaticallyand then reverse engineered to
figure out, okay. Like, how am Idoing this in my head? Because I
can't teach other people if Idon't know what I'm doing.
So that's how content fieldframework came to be, and it's
(17:39):
how I came into this process ofmaking frameworks. I'm like, how
do I look at ideas and makesense of them? And I realized
that I had four distinct thingsthat I was looking at. The first
one is the ideas themselves. Sowhat are the key pieces of
information that we are tryingto communicate?
We need to have those fairlyclear. Even if they might go by
different names, like, what arethe key elements? Let's make
(18:02):
piles. Like, here are thesetypes of things, these types of
things, and these types ofthings. Let's get those key
ideas down.
So that's the first step. That'sthe information. The second step
is we look at the relationshipbetween those pieces of
information. Are they all equal?Are some of them more important
than others?
Do they, you know, need tohappen in a specific order? Do
they lead from one to the other,or are they just a list of
(18:24):
things? So we're looking at howdo those pieces of information
relate to one another. The thirdone is operation. What do we
want people to do with thisthing?
Do they need to memorize it? Dothey need to use it as guidance
for a process? Do they need tomeasure themselves against it in
the case of, like, yourassessment? How are they going
to operate this model? And thenthe last step, as we talked
about, is naming.
(18:44):
This is what I call my ironframework, I r o n, information,
relation, operation, and thennaming. And that's really how we
take your ideas and kind of getrid of all those wrinkles and
get them into a straight,smooth, and organized pile of
information.
Susan Boles (18:58):
I think that sounds nice. I found the concept of the
iron framework to be veryhelpful.
Melanie Deziel (19:06):
So how do we break it down?
Susan Boles (19:07):
Yeah. I think the part that I struggled with was
realizing how iterative theprocess ends up being. Because
for me, it started as anacronym, And I'm gonna like,
originally, it was CALM. Andthen it became CALMER. Then
(19:29):
Uh-huh.
As I started using it, Irealized this doesn't quite hold
up in the real world. Yep. Okay.But now I'm stuck with CALMER as
an acronym that, like, thebuckets have changed because I
started using this in the realworld. And that prompted me to
have to go, okay, well, maybeit's not an acronym anymore.
(19:51):
Yeah. Maybe it's a visual thingthat I can still keep the name
Calmer Framework, but it'ssomething else. And that evolved
into, I think, it was like a asunburst kind of, like, And then
evolved into the lever systemThat, that we have like, even I
(20:13):
think it's I'm now, like,eighteen months down the road of
this process. As I was evolving,then I was taking the levers and
trying to turn them into anassessment. I ended up
realizing, oh, one of the namesof my levers still isn't quite
right because it requires toomuch explanation.
And the process of going throughthe assessment meant I went back
(20:34):
and changed Yeah. The name ofthe lever. So talk about how the
process normally evolves forfolks.
Melanie Deziel (20:42):
Yeah. It's a really good point too because
it's very rare that you sit downand you're like, let me make a
framework, and then it's justlike perfect for all eternity.
So for some context, again, justto use the same example, the
content field framework matrixthat I used, I didn't make it up
for the book. I had been usingit in workshops just like you're
talking about, like, actuallyusing it out in the world for
(21:03):
about a year and a half to twoyears before I memorialized it
into the book, and so muchchanged from initial to when it
was printed. And I wouldprobably adjust it now because
there's been innovation sincethen in the tools we use for
content.
Like, it doesn't address AI atall. That's probably gonna have
to happen in a version two. Soit it is important to know that
it's going to evolve. Right?There's nothing wrong with that.
(21:25):
Think about the periodic tableof elements. They discover a new
element, and they add it onthere in the right spot. Right?
Or the the tree that shows allthe different classes and
kingdoms and phylums of species,they discover something new,
they tack it on. That happens.
That's going to happen. What'simportant is that you recognize
when that's happening and makethose changes. So the fact that
(21:45):
you saw that it needed to bereorganized is part of that.
Right? Putting it to use andseeing where it's lacking and
being able to adjust it.
I even mentioned the foodpyramid that we all grew up
using. You know, if you're ofrelatively middle age or quarter
life crisis zone, you probablygrew up with the food pyramid.
They don't even use the pyramidanymore. Now they have this,
like, pie chart plate. Theychanged it because it didn't
(22:06):
serve anymore.
If you see the framework as away to present your ideas and
not as a name that we're marriedto and it has to be in this
form, it becomes easier toupdate it because you're making
it serve the ideas better. So,yes, it will definitely evolve
over time as it needs to. Theidea is if we go through the
iron framework, if we start byreally getting clear on what
(22:27):
those key ideas are, then we'reless likely to need to do major
restructure. So I'm using you asan example. You know, I love the
calmer framework, so this is allfrom a place of love.
When you went from calm tocalmer, what I see that as is
that is a problem of that firststage of the key information. We
thought there were four buckets.Right? You thought there were
four pieces of information. Youcame to discover there's
(22:50):
actually six.
We gotta adjust it. That's whereif we start with those key
information, we reallyinterrogate it. We ask really
critical questions about what isnecessary, what needs to be in
here, and what can be part ofsomething else. We can get
clearer on, for example, howmany buckets, how many steps,
how many of those keyinformation pieces need to be
included. So, hopefully, thathelps keep you from a major
(23:11):
restructure.
And then it's the relation andoperation, I think, is where it
brings you back. Right? Becauseif you start using it like you
did in the world, this is howpeople are operating, how I'm
using this in the world, I'vediscovered a gap. I need to go
back and make sure that the keyinformation pieces are the same.
But the naming part that youmentioned, that's at the end
because changing the label onthe lever, that's an easy switch
(23:33):
to make.
Right? You can do that. I'vechanged the names of categories.
Initially, there was a categoryof people focused content. It
used to be called features.
I come from journalism. Featuresto me means, obviously, it's
about a person. That doesn'tseem obvious to people who
didn't come from journalism, andI didn't know that until I
started using it around peoplewho didn't come from journals.
Right? So naming stuff, I think,is an easy swap to make.
(23:56):
Those bigger structural things,it's why we start with the key
information first. Because ifyou could get as clear as
possible on the most importantinformation, the rest of the
stuff tends to come easier, orit becomes clear, like you
mentioned, when you need to takea step back and reevaluate at
the high level.
Susan Boles (24:12):
Yeah. I think for me, when I created the buckets
of ideas, I was very confidentin those ideas. And I do think
they still exist. Like Yeah.They were reorganized, for sure.
But all of the pieces ofinformation that I started with
are still in the model now. Yep.Where I ended up getting stuck
(24:37):
was the translation. And I thinkthis is one of those areas where
this is something that isfundamentally really, really
challenging to do by yourself inisolation Yeah. In your room.
Like, I was very confident inthe original version. Like, I
tested it. I interrogated it. Iput people that I know into
(24:58):
different areas. It came out ofmy work with, you know, real
world businesses.
But there is an element where,like, you need a different
perspective to come in and helpyou understand the connections.
Melanie Deziel (25:12):
It's your idea. It comes from your brain. It
makes sense to you. It's kind oflike how editing requires
outside eyes because you knowwhat you meant to say, so you
might read the correct word orthe correct spelling even if
it's not on the page. It's verysimilar with your framework.
You know what the differentbuckets are, so you might just
skip the steps that an outsiderwould need to have more
explicitly explained. So, yeah,I think it's really helpful to
(25:34):
have other eyes, but it's alsohelpful not to commit too early.
Like, when you're playing aroundwith those ideas, again, that's
why naming is last. Right? Ifwe're not sure if this is the
final iteration, like, let's getout there.
Let me do a workshop with it.Before I give it a fancy name,
let me just call it how tocreate a calmer business or, you
know, something, how to come upwith more content ideas. Go
(25:54):
teach my version of it as it isnow and see how it lands or
write a blog post, see howpeople respond, see what
questions they have, talk aboutit on social, see what the
replies and comments say. Sojust start to put it out there.
Like, that's part of theprocess.
Right? You're just it's likebeta testing of a software or,
like, having a focus group.Right? You're just kinda putting
it out there for other eyes tosee, or find a partner who can
(26:18):
bring an outside perspective tothat early process when you're
in the development, which it wasI mean, I have really enjoyed
getting to work with you on thecalmer framework and watching it
evolve to to where it is nowover the course of the last, I
guess, yeah, it's been, like,almost two years.
Susan Boles (26:31):
Yeah. Part that I I love about it I mean, I love a
system. I always love a system.It had never occurred to me to
have a system around my ideas,and I spent eight years talking
about essentially the samestuff. Right?
Like, calmer framework doesn'tcontain anything in it that I
(26:52):
wasn't talking about in thefirst year of my business. But
it ended up being a surprisinglycollaborative process in a way
that I didn't expect becauseit's all my own ideas. But every
time I talked to somebody aboutit, they would bring in a
(27:13):
different perspective,especially if it's somebody that
had known my work for a longtime. Right? Yeah.
So, like, when I startedthinking about, essentially,
what's my premise? What do Italk about? How do I, like,
create this circle around allthe things that I talk about?
And that ended up being, cool.I'm gonna talk about it in the
context of calm.
I was trying to describe it to afriend who has known me for the
(27:38):
whole ten years of thisbusiness. I met them, I think,
in the first year of mybusiness. And when I was talking
about, hey, here's this newidea. And they were like, oh,
you know, that totally playsinto the idea of default
decisions. That is this ideafrom the first year of my
business that stuck with themthat then ended up being one of
(28:00):
the ends of the spectrum.
Melanie Deziel (28:02):
That
Susan Boles (28:02):
Yeah. It didn't even occur to me that the ideas
were all connected. They wereall the same until I had
somebody who's heard me talkabout stuff in eleventy billion
ways over the course of adecade, realizing from the
outside, like, hey, it's all thesame. Like, you're trying to
make this multiple differentthings. It's not different
things.
It's all one thing. And so beingable to talk to different people
(28:26):
who come at ideas from differentways. Right? So like, they came
in with the idea of they'velistened to me talk about stuff
for a decade. You came in withthe idea of like, hey, this
should be a system.
Right? Like, Jay Kinzo issomebody else who was like very
integral in the process of whatis the premise? Like, what's the
(28:48):
circle around this stuff? And soI think this is one area where
even though on the surface, Ithink most people are coming to
it like, this needs to be me myideas. This is my IP.
This is my framework. For me,the process has been so
collaborative. Like, there's somany people that have had an
(29:09):
impact on what the idea ends upeventually becoming. Think
that's a really underestimatedpart of this I think it's true.
Evolution of the process.
Melanie Deziel (29:20):
Yeah. And it's it's really true too because, I
mean, I've worked with a bunchof, you know, entrepreneurs. I
worked with organizations whoare trying to do something
similar, and that is often aconcern where they're like,
well, we don't want you to comeup it. And I'm like, no. I don't
wanna come up with it either.
Like, I don't know your coreideas as well as you do. To me,
I feel like I'm trying to helpyou organize them in a way that
makes your ideas more clear,that makes it easier for you to
(29:42):
communicate them, that makesthem fit together. You have all
these disparate pieces. Like,how do we see the bigger vision
and find out how they worktogether? It's just It's your
ideas organized organized.
In a way that makes them easierfor you. You can make a really
simple analogy too. It's like,think of a closet. If you have
(30:04):
no system in your closet andthere's just, like, pants and
underwear and sweaters and,like, bathing suits and
everything's just all mixed upand there's no dedicated drawer
or or shelf or area for anything, it's hard for you to find
what you need. It's hard for youto find the thing that somebody
else needs to borrow that youknow is perfect for them.
(30:24):
It is hard to make sense of thatspace. If you take everything
out, you figure out what yourcategories are, and you put them
in the place that best serveshow they're going to be used,
it's very, very similar. You'redoing the same thing like
organizing a closet just likewith your ideas. We're putting
like with like. We'reunderstanding what needs to
happen in what order.
Like, it doesn't make sense toput your underwear all the way
(30:46):
in the back if everything elseis over here because then you're
gonna have to, like, go reallyfar to start with your base
layer. Like, that shouldprobably be first. You know? So
it's the same content that youalready have in your brain.
We're just working together toorganize it in a way that will
make it easier for you.
It'll make it make more sensefor you. You make better use of
all your amazing ideas cause youcan get to them. I don't know. I
(31:08):
think I'm just a a glorifiedcloset organizer. Just brains
instead of closets.
Susan Boles (31:13):
I love that. Is there anything you think we
should talk about that wehaven't actually, like, touched
on when it comes to frameworksor this process?
Melanie Deziel (31:21):
Yeah. Another common concern I can't remember
if if you went through this atall. I think you were you kinda
had this already tackled. Butone thing that people worry
about is, like, how much do youput in it? Like, does my
framework need to cover everypossible service that I offer
and every possible thing I'veever talked about?
No. It doesn't. It it needs tobe somewhere in the middle of
enough that people understandwhat you do and understand your
(31:44):
main premise, your main idea,and not so much that they don't
have follow-up questions. Andthat's kind of a sweet spot that
can be hard to see from theinside, but there's a difference
between, again, the food pyramidand a graduate level course on
nutrition. They're not intendedto be substituted for one
another.
Right? It plays a very specificrole, that pyramid, to give you
(32:04):
the basic overview. And if youhave further questions, you can
dig in deeper. That's reallywhat we wanna do with our
framework too. You know, it'snot everything that you've ever
known, everything that youthink, everything that you have
to teach someone.
It shouldn't live on its ownwithout you to be implemented.
It should help people understandyour main idea so that they ask
those follow-up questions whereyou can help them do more.
Susan Boles (32:25):
I love that. Sometimes I feel like mine is
too big, and I think that'spartially because I talk about
all different aspects of it. Butsometimes it does feel kind of
big and unwieldy. And one of thethings I like about it is, on
the surface, it's four levers.That's pretty straightforward.
When you start getting into thedetails, man, I really could
(32:46):
write a book on each of thelevers. Totally. Like, could
totally be a it's standalonething. Now, when I see the
world, I'm so appreciative ofreally well designed designed
frameworks that can, like,really encapsulate an idea so
succinctly. Like Yeah.
Before having a framework, whenpeople were like, what do you
(33:10):
do? And I would give them thislong winded Yeah. Thing about
like, oh, I'm a fractional COOand CFO and I help people do
finance and operations. And thepeople would be like, what do
you mean? And then I had toexpand on that.
Now I could say, you know, Ihelp people engineer calmer
businesses. That's enough.Right? Like, that's enough to
get people to go, Tell me moreabout that. But I don't think I
(33:32):
would have been able to getthere without having a framework
that, like, organized thecomplexity for me.
Melanie Deziel (33:40):
Yeah. Well and it's the difference between is I
need you to tell me more becauseI don't understand and tell me
more than sounds interesting.Like, that's right? It's like
they still want more informationbut not because what you started
with is insufficient butbecause, wow, I I wanna learn
more about how to do that. Takeme further down that road.
Susan Boles (33:59):
Yeah. I it has been I think probably the single most
powerful thing that I haveinvested business in a decade
was just committing to having aframework and exploring it. I
don't think I could communicate,like, how much of an asset that
(34:21):
has become for the business.
Melanie Deziel (34:23):
Like Awesome.
Susan Boles (34:24):
Very surprisingly. Like, I think in systems all the
time. It never occurred to me toput a system on top of my ideas.
Melanie Deziel (34:32):
I mean, listen. I made a system for making
systems. So I feel
Susan Boles (34:35):
you sometimes. That is my favorite thing. When I'm
talking to people about you, I'mlike, the best thing is that she
made a system for makingsystems, and it's my favorite
thing ever.
Melanie Deziel (34:46):
I mean, listen. At least I'm walking the walk.
Right? I I practice what Ipreach. So
Susan Boles (34:52):
if people are listening and they want to try
to start this process forthemselves and they've been in
business a while, they've gotideas, they have a bajillion t
blog posts and email emailnewsletters newsletters and and
podcast interview. What is onetiny thing that they could do to
start?
Melanie Deziel (35:08):
A couple different options. If you are
really committed to, like, a DIYor you feel like you're in the
really early phases, go back tothat iron framework that I
walked through. So start byreally getting deep on your big
ideas. You can do this in abunch of different ways. If
you're a whiteboard person,throw it all in the whiteboard.
I personally like post itsbecause it allows you to
reorganize, and that's what thenext step involves. Right? That
(35:30):
relationship between all thoseideas. So I like putting
everything on post its, whetherit's on a wall, on paper, and
just get all your ideas out soyou can figure out what the key
information is. What's theoverlap?
You can try to figure out whatare your ingredients that you're
working with so you can then goon to build. That's where I
would start because I thinkthat's where a lot of light bulb
moments happen. Things start tobecome more clear when you
(35:52):
really get everything out all atonce and you're looking at all
of those elements. So that'swhere I would start. If you want
a a middle of the road option, Ido have a framework development
cheat sheet on my websitethat's, $5 or something.
Just a downloadable guide thatwalks you through each of those
steps. And I also work withpeople, with my framework
accelerator, which I've donewith you, where we do sort of a
(36:12):
two hour in-depth session, andwe do that together. We
interrogate those ideas. Weorganize them appropriately, and
then we get you to the pointwhere we don't always get to
name at the end. That's more ofa personal choice.
But we can figure out those keyideas, figure out their
relationships, and organize themin a way that allows you to go
forward and then make those partof
Susan Boles (36:30):
your business. This wasn't just a conversation about
frameworks as a concept. It'sabout using them as a lever. And
the lever that Mel and I bothpulled? Business design.
Specifically, the decision totreat our ideas as
infrastructure. We both realizedthat our IP, the core thinking
(36:53):
that runs through everything wedo, was too important to leave
undocumented or ad hoc. Weneeded a system that could hold
the complexity without requiringus to show up live every time to
explain it. Melanie's ironframework walks you through
clarifying the information, soyour core ideas, defining the
relationships between them,understanding the operation or
(37:15):
how people will use it, andlast, developing the naming and
the language that fits aroundit. When your framework can
contain your core ideas, you cantalk about the same thing
everywhere without feeling likeyou're repeating yourself.
Your clients can move fasterbecause you're working from a
shared mental model and you gaina lens to evaluate new offers,
(37:36):
content, and strategy choices.Frameworks don't just help you
explain your ideas. They canactually help you run your
business. So, yes, we're pullingthe business design lever of the
Calmer framework here,specifically the decision to
systematize your intellectualproperty. Because when your
ideas live in a consistentflexible structure, they don't
just sound clearer, theyactually scale.
(37:58):
That's what a good frameworkdoes. It gives you a repeatable
way to package your thinking,build services and products,
communicate with your team, andreduce the mental load of
reinvention. So as Melsuggested, here's your tiny
action to make some progress.Block off 20, pull together
every blog post, talk, outline,or scribbled note you've made
(38:21):
about your core idea. Then askyourself, what is showing up
over and over again?
What belongs together? What areyou actually trying to teach or
change? Don't try to name ityet. Don't diagram it. Just
surface the raw ingredientsbecause clarity isn't just a
messaging problem.
It's an operational opportunityand designing your ideas like
(38:43):
infrastructure. Well, that's howyou scale calmly. Now in the
next episode, Mel and I aregoing to take you behind the
scenes of her frameworkaccelerator service, the one
that we talked about here in alive coaching episode where
we're going to redesign andautomate her client onboarding
experience using the veryframework we've been talking
(39:03):
about. So hit subscribe in yourfavorite podcast player, and
I'll see you there.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.